Slashdot Mirror
3G Spectrum - Off Limits After Attacks
Casey writes: "MSNBC is reporting that due to the recent attacks, potential 3G spectrum currently held by the military has been placed off-limits for the foreseeable future -- with no replacement on the table. The FCC says that it might remove the current "spectrum cap" restrictions, allowing bigger cellular companies to gobble up smaller ones just for their spectrum. Expect to see a lot of consolidation if this goes through."
I have not only been disturbed by the lack of congresional integrity when it comes to civil-liberties, but now the basking of big buisness in all the cash and exemptions they need to further maul the little guy into oblivion.
1) One cheap fares airline has already gone under, the big aitlines are looking to get 15-20 billion dollars in cash, loans, and tax filing delays.
2) The removal of spectrum limits would mean that the mnopoly that phone companies once had on land lines will now be easly avalilbe in the wireless market ( much more lucrative ).
3) The sudden depresion of most markets will drive many of the little guys out of buisness.
Please post more example too, I'de like to collect more.
Finally, maybe I'll be able to get one cell phone and one plan that will let me travel more than 1/2 hour in any direction without incurring roaming charges. I'm sick of always living on the edge of a "home area" because the next county over is some other cell company's territory. Sprint PCS already just about does it for me, but their customer support is crap. If they could get better coverage, I'd ignore the customer support problems. :)
This is unlikely to drive consumer pricing down. If anything, as competetion is elmininated, the national giants will raise prices in less competetive markets.
:)
$60/month land line bill, meet $90/month cell phone bill, formerly known as $40/month cell phone bill.
The whole 3G spectrum debate has been a weird strawman for the lack of comprehensive spectrum policy in the U.S., as opposed to the agreements by which most of the rest of the world now operates.
Because of poor allocation of scarce resources back when analog devices needed huge bandwidth to transmit, the actual usage across the military bands isn't uniform, comprehensive, or necessary. But it would cost upwards of ten billion dollars according to several reports issued by the military itself, the FCC, and the spectrum offices at the NTIA, among many other agencies.
Another issue: the military has to use an entirely different set of frequencies when deploying missions abroad. Outside the U.S., in the next couple years, there will be millions of people using the various 2.x GHz bands that the military uses here. (Most of the domestic uses are for fixed radios and dishes, but still...)
The answer for 3G is probably to make current bands more efficient. On the flip side, though, the military has ever more telemetry, requiring even more bandwidth.
Back and forth, back and forth...it may be too late to fix this comprehensively.
Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
As if having cell networks three years behind the rest of the world wasn't bad enough...
Well, you may shout about your right to have guns, or how you don't want security cameras on your streets, but at least we've got GSM phones that actually *work*! They're pretty cheap, and they work all over Europe too.
This story doesn't have any credible source cited other than an analyst at the Yankee group. Companies like Yankee, PC Data and Jupiter group pay their analysts based on how often they can get quoted. Basically, publishing companies call them up when they need a quote for a story they've conjured up.
'Yankee Group'
'Hi, this is Bob from ZDNet. We are writing a story on eBooks, can you make up a quote for us?'
'How about "The eBook platform will be on the rise as consumers continue to look for convenience in reading materials. Dmitri will burn in hell."
'Thanks!'
Let's auction permanent ownership of spectrum. Nothing will ever happen to make it better to be able to re-assign frequencies."
</sarcasm>
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Of course they like monopolies...
Imagine you are a regulator (if such a thing truely exists). It is your job to look out over an industry and make sure everyone is following the rules.
Your job is easiest when the industry consists of:
a) a few big companies
b) one huge company
c) lots of small companies and a few big ones
d) thousands of tiny companies and no big ones
Correct answer: b. Your job is easiest when you only have one company to watch.
So naturally, the government, who is the number one employer of regulators, would like to downsize as much as possible just like any big business (cough) so that they can (cough) maximize prof^H^H^H^H efficiency (cough). In order to do that, they need to lighten the load on all those regulators, and so, the government favors monopolies.
And that brief analysis doesn't even begin to take politics into account.
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
Need? Hardly the word I'd use - more like want. And they'll likely get it. The real question we should be asking would center on why *Corporate* people don't have to play by the same rules as *REAL* people. If I were to make the same demands I expect the roar of laughter to see me out of the building. So why is business allowed to act immorally, and even expected to..?
1) One cheap fares airline has already gone under, the big aitlines are looking to get 15-20 billion dollars in cash, loans, and tax filing delays.
Not sure if you are referring to ALL or just the US ones, but we have the same BS happening here in Canada. Air Canada seems to expect that the taxpayers should bail them out of their own lack of planning. Not to be too sarcastic, but remind me again- who decides on security measure in/around airports and on airplanes..?! Their lack of intelligence in decision making and they expect us to bail them out.. thems some big balls indeed..
i know that alot of us have been looking forward to 3g advances and such forth. but uh the man did say we would have to put up with some changes until this mess is over with. personally i think what happened on 9-11 has changed american and the world in ways we can't even imagine. we are in for a long haul of trouble ahead and i am beginning to have doubts as to wether or not our generation will ever see peace again.
-
We are the American government, we say "Freedom and Justice to all!!!"
30 mins later:
We are the American government, we have shut down all borders and banned planes from flying. We have turned off the cell-phone networks and established checkpoints across the country. We have installed Carnivor boxes in all the big ISPs to monitor your email. We want to ensure all encryption software has back doors. Oh good, now we can do all this, and do it quicker because people will believe that it will help prevent terrorism, not only that but we can rush the SSSCA law through the system, and stop assigning bandwidth for mobile phones, We believe in justice, but under the circumstances lets just go and kill Bin Laden, and, just for good faith, we'll promise not to blow the Taliban and half of Afghanistan away if they give him up first.
Even though it was very much our fault for not realising that sooner or later someone would put hijacking, and suicide bombing together to produce a weapon, and we should have improved security on planes, lets just forget that for a second and GOD BLESS AMERICA, sorry, got carried away there an.. GOD SAVE AMERICA, sorry, no more i promise. Oh, and 'cause we don't want to take the retaliation all for our selves, lets make sure they use the All-for-one-one-for-all section of the UN treaty and drag all the other countries into it.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Forbes magazine had an article last month, showing just how consolidation would help the industry, and the consumers in the US.
Basically, there are too many companies, chasing too many incompatible technologies.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
The article says that the military "may" and that industry analysts "expect". Well I find this hard to believe being that 3G tests are being conducted currently (meaning that licenses for the spectrum are already out there). I doubt that the US govt is going to cap an entire industry (in this case wireless). Also, think about CALEA and the potential that 3G allows... I'm really pretty much doubting this article alltogether.
Which I would, if I was in Canada.
In fact, I'm in Scotland.
The biggie is that over much of the North-West of Scotland, GSM-1800 coverage really sucks. When I go up to my mother's house, I need to go and phone from the garden, or I can't get a network.
I don't see why 3G phones would have made a difference here, they already knew the WTC planes had crashed.
Barbara Olson was on the phone with her husband and she was in the plane that crashed in the Pentagon.
- sigs are for wimps.
There is an interesting article in the October issue of Red Herring about the bureaucratic nightmare that wireless companies face in trying to develop "next-generation wireless networks." I just thought you all would like to know.
Most industrialized nations with our type of technological infrastructures are years ahead of us in wireless technology. My opinion is that the stranglehold on potential 3g spectrums is part of the reason why the technological bust happened. Back in the late 90's (seems like a million years ago) when everyone was happy and rich (except me), wireless devices were supposed to be the next "big thing." Now they're all but a curiousity for most Americans where in Japan and Sweden they're a necessity. I think the tech sector would come around if the current administration opened more of these specrums up (but they'd have to get through the DOD first) for development. Something tells me, however, after September 11th, they'll be hell bent on preventing these technologies from spreading too quickly lest they be employed by terrorism.com.
There are fringe groups out there getting paranoid about this even as we speak.
Conspiracy theories implicate every moneyed interest imaginable. Sadly , some of these may even be true.
Time to stock up the old Y2K bunker. Get them while they're cheap
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The real question we should be asking would center on why *Corporate* people don't have to play by the same rules as *REAL* people. If I were to make the same demands I expect the roar of laughter to see me out of the building. So why is business allowed to act immorally, and even expected to..?
I'm not certain exactly what you're referring to, but if it's the airlines' demands, let me explain:
The airline business is a VERY low margin and low cashflow business. That means that, though they make billions in revenues, the airlines don't clear that much actual profit (relative to their revenues) and always have very little cash on hand.
When an event such as the attacks on the WTC takes place and the government puts restrictions on air travel (i.e. the FAA forces all flights to be grounded) and overall safety is at risk (i.e. evidence that more attacks could be planned makes it a good decision to keep flights grounded), the airlines do everything they can to keep going. If these events cause them to run out of the tiny amount of cash they currently have, they're going to ask the government for help, and the government is probably going to give it to them.
Why? Becuase if they go under, you are going to suffer. You are going to have to take the train, bus, car, mule, whatever. That will cause a massive destabilization of our business infrastructure, and will hurt our economy even further. It's the government's job to protect (and guide) the economy to recovery, so don't complain when they do that job.
Large corporations, such as the airlines, that are centerpieces to the economy will get preferential treatment by the government because lack of such treatment has major consequences on the country's well-being.
On the other hand, one person's need for preferential treatment isn't going to mean a damn thing to the overall economy, so you won't get any help.
nlh
Ferrari and other exotic car rentals in New York
Actually in the US, the FAA is responsible for creating security policies. The airlines only pay for it.
The reality is that the US economy would shrink dramatically if the airlines were to disappear, as every sector of the economy is somewhat dependant on air travel. (I fly around half the country working for a funeral home company, if that gives you any perspective.) A smaller economy means a smaller tax base, so airline aid will likely actually have a negative associated cost. Although the principle of capitalism is that private industry takes care of its own problems, there come times when pragmatic decisions have to be made.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Locally (suburban Detroit) we have choice in both cable service and land line telephone. Only two choices a piece, but choices nonetheless.
For the land line it costs ~$45/month just to have the phone. That may be largely local taxes and fees, but I doubt it.
One of the more amusing things about the recent [I'm loath to call it this] dot com bull and subsequent bear market is just how wrong the analysts were. On the upswing, all the analysts and pundits threw their words and weight behind the dumbest ideas (remember "push"?). They touted the most foolish buisiness plans. They devoted all of their attention to the shinyest doodad out there, and utterly ignored the real changes that were happening in plain sight. On the downswing, despite obvious (and historically, emperically and numerically proven) indications a year ahead of time that the economy was going to slow, there was not a peep from the analyst community that things weren't going as well as they seemed. Sure, there was hype and doomsaying, but there always is. No one wanted to stick their neck out and say that the party might be slowing down, and that it might be getting time to find your date and go home. Just think - if the analyst community had been more clearheaded and more honest, we might have had a dot com slowdown, instead of a meltdown, when it did come. There are consiquences when you deny reality, and that's not a matter of opinion.
In spite of the suggestions and all the tests that I have made, I have not cavato a spider from the hole.
There's not much money in moving people around, but we need to move people around to make other parts of the economy function.
It's in areas like this where Libertarian economic theory falls down; sometimes subsidies are necessary. It might be robbing Peter to pay Paul, but psychologically, it doesn't seem that way to the average guy. And nine-tenths of econ is really mass psychologogy.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Cool! Regional GPS brownouts ...
Kind of suspected that, but had no proof. Just remember the spectrum charts from my days in the military and doing some work for cell phone providers.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Well, given that Japan has just rolled out their first phase 3G network, and I don't believe that Sweden has even begun, I think that you're off base.
It's not the lack of high-bandwidth connectivity that's slowing down US adoption of wireless technology. DoCoMo seems to do pretty well on 2G tech.
I think that there are many factors that contribute to slower-than-we'd-like adoption of wireless services, and that the cries of "we're waiting for 3G" are largely bogus. Waiting for what? Streaming video? Somehow I don't think that's the killer wireless app, anymore than videophones killed my telephone.
Invisible Agent
This post is a mirror; when a monkey stares in, no hacker gazes out.
Probably gonna screw up the 802.11 war-camelling in the Gulf area tho :)
Tell me something folks:
Is every slimeball in the world going to crawl out from under their rocks this month and use the WTC attacks as an excuse to fuck someone in the ass? Because I for one am getting really tired of it, really fast. It's disrespectful in the extreme to those who died.
It's a toss-up as to who I hate more: the fanatical monsters who killed thousands, or the opportunistic bastards trying to profit off horror and sorrow.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
We are in a WAR
Gee, I must have missed the news bulletin where they announced that Congress had declared war on someone.
However, if you read the rest of the post, it's a rather cleverly written troll. Well done.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Sorry, dude.
Iraq is "Bablyon". Iran is "Persia".
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
You are correct: I misspoke. Airlines are a low-margin, _high_ cashflow business, but that cash is on hand for a very small amount of time and, hence, runs out quickly.
nlh
Ferrari and other exotic car rentals in New York
The computer manufacturers have very low margins , the grocery stores have very low margin.
.com era day-to-day valuations.
WTF: a business is profitable or not.
Your statements are foolish and ignorant. If the U.S. were struck with an EMP that disabled the nations computer infrastructure and then the government tied the hands of the manufacturers for a certain amount of time, you can damn well be sure there would be a bail-out package to get our systems back up and running. Likewise with a biological attack on our food supply.
The problem is not the most businesses are not profitable: the problem is that people are greedy - the only thing that satisfies them is the
This statement is baseless. For better or for worse, greed drives capitalism, and without either you'd be sucking trash from a disposal outlet for dinner. If you'd rather live in a country that lacks a stable government, economy, or has wealth to speak of, I heartily encourage you to move to Afghanistan oh, say, right about a week from now.
Ferrari and other exotic car rentals in New York
Stand beside her, and... nah. Let's just all move to Europe.
(in case you can't tell, that was SARCASM)
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Oh, also...airlines aren't the only ones getting help:
? tag=nbs
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-7240474.html
Ferrari and other exotic car rentals in New York
While the spectrum is still military, it has a chance of being fairly reallocated. In the current corporate-friendly environment, the frequencies would just go to abusive, customer-hating monopolies. And then it would be very hard to ever pry those frequencies back from them.
The internet has made us more sophisticated about the potential division between content and transmission. I believe that the radio spectrum should only be licensed to common carriers who offer to carry raw data in a non-discriminatory manner, without bundling any other services.
What we need is high-speed wireless internet. Given that, services like voice telephony can be provided in a highly competitive environment. So can many other innovative services we haven't thought of yet.
Ever notice how hated most telecom providers are? Notice how they keep customers at arms length via "call centers" and IVR? They are near-monopolies, using government granted resources like spectrum to achieve a closed market in which they can harm the purchaser. Let's put an end to this junk by giving the spectrum to common-carrier ISP's. If we did this across the whole spectrum, it would cause a massive shift in power away from huge corporations and towards small businesses and citizens.
cash and exemptions they need to further maul the little guy into oblivion.
Let's see how long small airlines could survive without the big corporations who drive down prices for the whole industry through enabling suppliers to take advantage of economies of scale, shall we? Suddenly that $50 part might cost $500 if there were too few buyers...
Not to be too sarcastic, but remind me again- who decides on security measure in/around airports and on airplanes..?! Their lack of intelligence in decision making and they expect us to bail them out.. thems some big balls indeed..
Uhhh, that would be government regulators? Appointed by, you guessed it, the taxpayer and their elected representatives.
Yeah, horns are usually associated with leaders. Sometimes wings are considered "directions to move" or for a beast or country the direction it conquers. Did Persia under Sargon move west, south and north?
One could suppose the one he goat was Rome or Greece, since in many ways they were the same country. Alexander the Great defeated Sargon and his empire, and was a "single horn" or leader. From what I understand he conquered regions but never really occupied them, hence he never "touched the ground".
But then I'm not sure which four governments game from the fall of Alexanders Empire, (four horns growing when the first was broken) but the one horn that grew out of that was even until the kingdom of God or coming of Christ.
Anyway, I'd still have to review this longer before I put my name to it but thats my take.
I would really like to know how expressing dislike of the current administrations belief that this is a country of the corps, by the corps, for the corps is a 'troll'. It is a well established fact, even if you do not like it.
And it is Elf not Troll anyway.
~CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
The problem with too many companies, and too many technologies, is that roaming and "nationwide plans" are fraught with problems.
I'm not advocating a single company controlling it all. Or even a single unified technology necessarily. But Consolidating down, so there are a few large nationwide carriers would go a long ways towards making the system work alot better.
Realistically, there are 3 major long distance providers, and look at the price cutting that has gone on in that market since the 80's.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Certainly. Libertarians (as I understand the political philosophy) believe that government should only fund very specific things: security (internal and external) and justice (making sure that property disputes are settled and that criminal offenses are punished). Any services the government does provide must not be monopolies; anyone should be allowed to perform them and the government should be funded based on the fees it collects for its services.
Subsidies, bail-outs, what have you, are completely opposed in all the Libertarian theory that I've heard. It's seen as taking money by force from people (via the government's ability to punish) to fund failing businesses. Those businesses which are going to fail, should fail. Thinking like this led Congress to end the Amtrack subsidies, and is the reason why there is vocal opposition to farm subsidies and other "corporate welfare."
Thing is, there are some businesses where people will just not pay up front the necessary costs for the service. Some of them (dot-coms come to mind) are spurious, and should fail. But airlines and other mass transit systems are vastly necessary. They are the grease in the gears of an economy, moving people and stuffs around. Because it's necessary, the government, in moments of need by the industry and sanity by the government, steps in to provide necessary funding.
Of course, it's horribly inefficient for the government to redistribute funds, but people aren't willing to pay the costs up-front. It's psychological, really. Libertarian philosophy tends to think that people are completely rational (as well as economic genuises). Clearly, this is not so. So sometimes we need to do things the inefficient way, just because it can't be done any other way. It's not theft, just reality.
Did I misstate anything about Libertarianism?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
there are more - here's a nice page of them. I ought to compile a list of modern day ones, but I'm sure someone's allready done it. Just Google for it.
In spite of the suggestions and all the tests that I have made, I have not cavato a spider from the hole.
Ah, no back in the day, they were the first free webmail service I came across..